The Instigator
gametimer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Just try to support Christianity scientifically.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 532 times Debate No: 75913
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

gametimer

Con

If you think that you can validly bypass the bible scientifically, feel free to debate an unwinnable challange
Emilrose

Pro

Debate accepted.

Firstly, Con fails to define *exactly* what they're arguing by exclusively using the term "scientifically".

Evidence of Christianity can actually be found in archeological findings [1.]

This may not be the kind of "science" Con has in mind but as no definitions or additional explanations have been provided in round one, they still count as valid scientific evidence of Christianity and as proof that it exists. [2.]

Such discoveries also mean that science can indeed be applied to Christianity. [3.]

Noting once again that Con.did *not* define what form of science would specifically be included in the debate. Therefore as according to the resolution, archeological evidence is technically "supporting Christianity".

Alluding to more literal evidence, however, there is certainly a strong case to be made for evidence of a design for the universe--which strongly corresponds with Christianity and the concept of God being an actual creator [4.]

[1.] http://www.nbcnews.com...

[2.] http://m.livescience.com...

[3.] http://www.sciencedaily.com...

[4.] http://www.everystudent.com...
Debate Round No. 1
gametimer

Con

gametimer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
gametimer

Con

gametimer forfeited this round.
Emilrose

Pro

Con has failed to outline any opening argument *and* provide rebuttals.

So vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=============================================
Vote report: Nathaniel.Braswell

Report: Vote bomb and lack of valid RFD

[*Reason for non-removal*] While this RFD is invalid in awarding all 7 points, we're not moderating forfeit debates.
============================================
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Skill? I've lost one debate [with extremely close votes]out of 40.

I'm not a Christian; so I have nothing to advocate or argue passionately for in this debate--rather I am picking up on the fact that Con failed to properly *define* his terms and explain the resolution, because of that my argument for round two stands as valid. What I am showing is that there is infact "proof" of Christianity in the form that it existed and can have scientific methods applied for research into it.

Again, Con did define what form of evidences they had in mind and instead left their resolution exploitable and open to interpretation.
Posted by tschuk 1 year ago
tschuk
Pro, your first source leads to an "error" page (May be a fault of my computer, however if it holds true for anyone else than your source isn't admissible).

1. Also, you aren't necessarily proving Christianity in any way. In a way it seems like your trying to debunk it given the topics of your sources. I also find it odd how you reference the supposed "Jesus Family Tomb" despite it being thoroughly debunked already.

https://badarchaeology.wordpress.com...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://www.biblearchaeology.org...

I would expect someone trying to support Christianity (Scientifically or Historically) would actually try to prove it through the use of scientific and historic fact. Not give another faulty claim that Jesus's bones were "discovered". I don't think you should be debating someone of Pro's skill set Con. It seems to me that she knows little of supporting Christianity given her topics that she brought up in the debate.
Posted by gametimer 1 year ago
gametimer
Done. :)
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Hmm, increase the time limit and I'll accept this; it's 5:20 AM here.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nathaniel.Braswell 1 year ago
Nathaniel.Braswell
gametimerEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeit in my book gives Pro all points
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
gametimerEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: *sigh* Forfeiture...